Quote from Pekelo:
Why not? Staying with my previous example, that teacher makes about 2K per week. But his well balanced student is going to make 20K per week, for that student the 2K fee for possibly having a system for a few good years worths way more than 2 K.
I think the profitsharing is a good idea even if just for the first year. If the system doesn't make money or small amount, there is no fee. Otherwise the teacher is well compensated for a possible good system...
Your example doesn't make sense.
If you are making 2k per week and you are going to ONLY teach someone for one week...
You should only be compensated for the loss income to teach someone for one week = 2k
Thus, the reason why your example is flawed is because you are
assumining the student will make more than 2k during the one week of mentoring.
It's flawed because you are trying to say the student will continue the exact same success after the mentoring has completed.
Reality, that's not going to happen.
Reality is that the income level will drop when the mentoring has completed as the student is still trying to digest what has been taught for one week...
Digesting within a changed market condition.
Thus, you are trying to based a higher fee upon income potential of the student in the future...
Same student that no longer has access to your service....
Same student that ONLY got one week of mentoring.
Another flaw is this...
If you (the mentor) doesn't have the ability to make 20k per week...
Why would you assume a mentored student that only has one week of tutoring from you can exceed your profit level.
Simply, based upon your logic...years from now...the mentor should be able to achieve 20k per week.
If that is correct, if/when such happens, that's when you can charge 20k for one week of mentoring...
If you are lucky enough to find someone to pay that fee...it can be done with a money back guarantee policy if the mentoring fails to produce profits during the mentoring.
Mark